- 6 -
not know Mr. Orsino received from his mother a bond to which he
held title. Petitioner had no awareness of the bond’s existence
and, thus, could not have actual knowledge of interest from the
bond. Petitioner’s contention that she did not have clear
awareness of the item of income relies not on ignorance of the
law, but on ignorance of a material fact. See id. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 6015(c), petitioner is relieved of liability
for the tax deficiency attributable to interest from the savings
bond.
Pursuant to section 6015(f), respondent is granted
discretion to award relief from joint and several liability if
the facts and circumstances indicate that it would be inequitable
to hold the spouse seeking relief liable for the deficiency. We
conclude that it would not be inequitable to hold petitioner
liable for the deficiency attributable to Mr. Orsino’s
compensation and 401(k) withdrawal. Petitioner knew of the
omitted income and 401(k) withdrawal, did not establish economic
hardship, and benefited significantly from the omitted
compensation (i.e., funds were deposited into a joint account)
and 401(k) withdrawal (i.e., petitioner is currently receiving
$400 monthly payments as her share of the 401(k) withdrawal).
See Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2000-1 C.B. 447. In addition, both Mr.
Orsino and petitioner incurred the tax debt. Therefore, the
marital settlement agreement does not shift all of the liability
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011